Main menu

Monthly Archives: March 2009

I e-mailed the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association — the real power in Sherman Oaks politics — for a statement/comment on the Part of Sherman Oaks effort to extend the boundaries of the community of Sherman Oaks north from Burbank Boulevard, between Hazeltine Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard, to either Tiara or Califa streets.

Here’s what I received:

Hello,

We are not taking a position, the decision will be made by [outgoing City Councilwoman] Wendy Greuel.

Thank you,
SOHA

(Material [in brackets] is mine. I imagine the entire Los Angeles City Council will be making any decision.)

You can’t walk 50 feet in what I like to call Southeast Van Nuys without running into a Part of Sherman Oaks sign.

It’s an effort aimed at moving the northern border of the community of Sherman Oaks from its current terminus, Burbank Boulevard (between Hazeltine Avenue to the east, Sepulveda Boulevard to the west) up to either Califa or Tiara streets, just shy of Oxnard Street.

Those behind the effort contend that since this neighborhood is already so “Sherman Oaksey,” it should enjoy that community distinction and rid itself of the name Van Nuys and all associated with it.

Organizers behind the effort — who, judging by their Web page and blog, are going to some length to keep their names off the the thing — point out that the northern boundary of their hoped-to-be community was extended once before, in 1992, from Magnolia Boulevard to Burbank Boulevard. (It indeed would be a shame for oft-tony Weddington Street and Chandler Boulevard not also to be Part of Sherman Oaks, but due to the 1992 boundary change, that horror is behind us).

Anybody who lives in the city of Los Angeles — and especially in the San Fernando Valley — knows about the deal with community names, and many portions of existing communities have broken off and either joined another adjacent community or come up with a new name: Valley Glen, West Hills, North Hills (there is no South or East Hills, or even just “Hills,” by the way), Lake Balboa (none of which borders the lake, which is man-made and filled with “reclaimed” water from the nearby Tillman Reclamation Plant), Winnetka, Valley Village, etc.

It’s no secret that the name Van Nuys is held by many in much less esteem than is Sherman Oaks, and nowhere is that evidenced more than in real-estate prices. Whether or not the organizers of Part of Sherman Oaks acknowledge it or not, that seems to be the primary motivator behind every one of these efforts.

A given neighborhood doesn’t feel that it “fits” their perception of what a certain community name represents in its collective mind, so those who are so motivated want to shed that name — and the perceptions that go with it.

Again — it’s all about real estate. Those in the “Part of Sherman Oaks” target area, which the group estimates at 1,800 homes, stand to gain.

If this goes through, they purchased homes in Van Nuys but will be able to sell them in Sherman Oaks.

It’s a one-time gain, a potential cash calf in the midst of the worst real-estate price retreat in memory.

I wonder how those already in Sherman Oaks feel about this effort? Adding dozens or more homes at any given time to the “Sherman Oaks inventory” of properties for sale could theoretically lower the average price of a Sherman Oaks home.

Like I said, we’re already in such s&%$, in the short term at least, this shouldn’t matter.

One thing I can tell you: Before the real-estate crash of the past year, an above-average Van Nuys home in the Part of Sherman Oaks target area does command somewhat of a premium, but nothing like it would if it were in Sherman Oaks proper.

And a substandard Sherman Oaks home (and there are more of these than you might think; Van Nuys has no corner on the distressed-property market) still enjoys somewhat of a price bump due to its location.

But in the current slump, I’ve seen bargains a-plenty in Sherman Oaks. People who either want or need to sell are doing what they must to make it happen.

In January, a motion before the SONC to approve the name change was defeated in favor of the change was defeated 12-1 (with one abstaining) in January. At that same meeting, a motion to oppose the name change was adopted 10-1 (with three abstaining).

So at some level, I think we can safely say that those already in Sherman Oaks aren’t terribly excited about the idea.

According to Anderson’s Daily News article, the L.A. City Council — the body that makes actual decisions on this sort of thing — will consider the matter “in the next several weeks.”

I can tell from my informal survey of Van Nuys residents in the targeted area that while many are in favor of being part of Sherman Oaks, that feeling is by no means universal.

But between all those lawn signs and a city, county, state and nation in the midst of an economic meltdown, I can see opposition to Part of Sherman Oaks melting away.

I’ll bottom-line it for you: Like I’ve said, there are plenty of marginal (aka crappy) properties both residential and commercial, in Van Nuys. There are some equally junky parcels, but far fewer, in Sherman Oaks. The neighborhood being proposed for Sherman Oaks-hood is indeed a nice area. I should know — I live here.

Does the area need to be in Sherman Oaks? Will empires crumble, will psyches suffer, will children go without warm blankets if Part of Sherman Oaks does or doesn’t succeed? No on all counts.

I figure it’ll all come down to how involved those already in Sherman Oaks get in opposing Part of Sherman Oaks — and how politically connected the various parties are at the present time.

It’s kind of like being asked to the prom: Does Sherman Oaks even want us at the dance?

How should we feel about community designations that both unite and divide communities in the service of real-estate values?